Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[childeye]

then I'Tm afraid I can't debate with you. You are operating on blind faith, I'm operating on logic and reason, the scientific method and evidence. Never the twain shall meet.

Respectfully, I'm operating on logic and reason, the scientific method is first hypothesis that there is an absolute Truth. Experimenting to create evidence of that hypothesis is scientific method. As science has shown and proven that Love is the necessary requirement for sanity, I think I am being more scientific than you give me credit for.

My statement: God being that absolute Truth through which we acknowledge exists pertaining to knowledge and ignorance of.

Your statement: I'm operating on logic and reason, the scientific method and evidence. Never the twain shall meet.

You obviously don't understand what I said. "There is a Truth" which science seeks to prove. You simply have an aversion to the term God. Hypothesis is the same as faith so your reasoning appears hypocritical from the start.

 

[Free]

I am trying to get across that the statement ""atheism an irrational and illogical religion of the world" cannot be seen as a religion as it doesn't involve faith in any gods. An atheist has an enormous amount in common with a Christian as they both don't believe in thousands of gods. A Christian has simply made one exception out of thousands. Do you understand? If it's "irrational and illogical" to be an atheist because an atheist doesn't believe in gods or goddesses then a Christian must also be "irrational and illogical" since they have the non-belief of all gods in common except God. It's just that the Christian has made an exception from the rule.

I think that "hard" atheism is irrational, particularly that of the militant atheists, and "soft" atheism is really agnosticism. Atheism itself isn't a religion but many hold what amounts to religious beliefs regarding science.

 

[childeye]

I think that "hard" atheism is irrational, particularly that of the militant atheists, and "soft" atheism is really agnosticism. Atheism itself isn't a religion but many hold what amounts to religious beliefs regarding science.

Yes it is religious so long as a group adheres to the same conviction regarding an image of god. An atheist image being there is no God ,gods ,godesses etc...
They worship the god of no gods. The term god being an absolute Truth.

 

[Artie]

Yes it is religious so long as a group adheres to the same conviction regarding an image of god. An atheist image being there is no God ,gods ,godesses etc...
They worship the god of no gods. The term god being an absolute Truth.

Sorry you're not making sense to me. Atheists don't believe in any gods or goddesses including God. You don't believe in any gods or goddesses either but have simply made an exception for God. I don't know how to explain it simpler. You and atheists have a non-belief of thousands of gods in common. You have therefore much more in common than what you don't have in common. I don't think in definitions I think in practice now. And in practice you and atheists have so much in common that there's practically no difference. The difference is only one god out of thousands.

If a Christian should come across absolute scientific evidence for God that proves God exists all religions would collapse and science would take over. It would be impossible for a Christian to claim that he believes in God and can feel Him in his heart if God is on the news explaining how He created the universe to scientists. If science could provide absolute proof how the universe came to be where would God go? Religion depends on people not being able to prove or disprove God. A thousand years ago people believed Thor the Thundergod made thunder and lightning. Now we have meteorology. How many meteorologists believe in Thor? How many in the general population believe in Thor?

 

[childeye]

Sorry you're not making sense to me. Atheists don't believe in any gods or goddesses including God. You don't believe in any gods or goddesses either but have simply made an exception for God. I don't know how to explain it simpler. You and atheists have a non-belief of thousands of gods in common. You have therefore much more in common than what you don't have in common. I don't think in definitions I think in practice now. And in practice you and atheists have so much in common that there's practically no difference. The difference is only one god out of thousands.

If a Christian should come across absolute scientific evidence for God that proves God exists all religions would collapse and science would take over. It would be impossible for a Christian to claim that he believes in God and can feel Him in his heart if God is on the news explaining how He created the universe to scientists. If science could provide absolute proof how the universe came to be where would God go? Religion depends on people not being able to prove or disprove God. A thousand years ago people believed Thor the Thundergod made thunder and lightning. Now we have meteorology. How many meteorologists believe in Thor? How many in the general population believe in Thor?

You and I are not agreeing on terms and that is why you make no sense to me and I make no sense to you. Try to grasp this reality. There is a reality. This reality is real. This reality that is real is True, for if it were false it would not be real. Discovering Truth is the same as aquiring knowledge. Knowledge is knowing what is real. 1+1=2. That is a reality. That is proof of an absolute Truth. Now having said that, the term God is used to proclaim in perpetuity the beginning and end of all Truth encompassing all things. God is Truth. Now we can argue what God is or whether He is asentient person or supernatural or Spiritual or whatever we can imagine God to be, but there can only be One God, one Truth, One reality. 1+1 must equal 2, not 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 etc....many gods.

 

[ivdavid]

I don't think in definitions I think in practice now. And in practice you and atheists have so much in common that there's practically no difference.

I'm glad to know that you're "practically" a believer - given that we're not thinking in definitions and that there's no practical difference. What are we arguing for, again?

How many in the general population believe in Thor?

Are we taking a vote on numbers to determine truth? I didn't know that was a scientific method - is it?


Artie, if you happen to believe in the concept of morality, browse around this thread(we've been discussing this earlier) and tell me how you'd reconcile the fact that the concept of morality cannot exist in an atheist's materialistic/naturalist world.

 

[Artie]

You and I are not agreeing on terms and that is why you make no sense to me and I make no sense to you.

We agree on that. Your explanation doesn't make sense to me at all. If anyone else thinks it makes sense please come forward and try to explain it in a different way. To say that there is just one God when everybody knows there are thousands, such as Allah and Zeus etc etc makes no sense to me. Here is a huge list of gods mentioned in the Bible: http://www.palmyria.co.uk/superstition/biblegods.htm

 

[Artie]

I'm glad to know that you're "practically" a believer - given that we're not thinking in definitions and that there's no practical difference. What are we arguing for, again?

No arguing. I simply point out that Christians in practice has so much in common with atheists such as the non-belief in thousands of gods so one might as well call them atheists who has made an exception for one god. Therefore Christians shouldn't complain about atheists.

Are we taking a vote on numbers to determine truth? I didn't know that was a scientific method - is it?

Either you didn't understand my argument, or you are trying to avoid commenting in a sensible way on it. Either way it says more about you than the argument.

Artie, if you happen to believe in the concept of morality, browse around this thread(we've been discussing this earlier) and tell me how you'd reconcile the fact that the concept of morality cannot exist in an atheist's materialistic/naturalist world.

There are so many pages here I haven't got a chance to understand exactly what you're hinting at. Can you sum it up in a few words?

 

[ivdavid]

I simply point out that Christians in practice has so much in common with atheists such as the non-belief in thousands of gods so one might as well call them atheists who has made an exception for one god. Therefore Christians shouldn't complain about atheists.

People here have been patiently trying to show you the absurdity of what you've stated as an argument/point.

If I picked 2 guys who shared "practically" the same beliefs, political views,academic interest, creative bent etc. and further observed that they "practically" had so much in common except for the one difference in that one of them was a murderer and the other wasn't, according to you, one might as well call that murderer an innocent except for that one murder or call that innocent a murderer except for that one murder - and that the innocent shouldn't actually complain about the murderer and vice versa. This simply doesn't make any sense.
We don't look at the many common points to say they're nearly the same - we look at the little but definitive difference and state that they're quite different.

And when you depart from definitions and semantics, what is stopping me from employing the same approach and defining you as "practically" a religious believer? If the believer in God might as well be called an atheist, because they hold so much in common - then by the same reasoning, an atheist might as well be called a believer in God - which is self-refuting.

Make an attempt to understand this - the definition of a "theist" is not derived from the definition of an "atheist" - it's the other way around. A theist is defined as - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods. It's not defined as one who believes in the non-existence of many gods - it's defined as one who believes in the existence of a god or gods. This means even if one believed in a single God, he would be considered a theist. The direct converse, the tautological inverse, the logical opposite of a "theist" is an "atheist" - one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. The theist cannot nearly be an atheist nor the other way around - they're opposites. This is scientific inquiry and deduction. Do you find anything irrational in what I've stated here? And please could you tell me where science permits the observations of the "practical" without adhering to unambiguous definitions?

Can you sum it up in a few words?

An atheist has to believe in a purely materialistic world. In a purely materialistic world, there is only matter and its properties according to which the matter strictly behaves without deviation. In such a world, we can only make descriptive statements such as "Man committed murder" and not prescriptive statements such as "Man ought not to commit murder". This removes the very concept of morality from the reality of a naturalistic world. So, if you do believe in the concept of morality, this would be self-refuting.

 

[Artie]

People here have been patiently trying to show you the absurdity of what you've stated as an argument/point.

If I picked 2 guys who shared "practically" the same beliefs, political views,academic interest, creative bent etc. and further observed that they "practically" had so much in common except for the one difference in that one of them was a murderer and the other wasn't, according to you, one might as well call that murderer an innocent except for that one murder or call that innocent a murderer except for that one murder - and that the innocent shouldn't actually complain about the murderer and vice versa. This simply doesn't make any sense.
We don't look at the many common points to say they're nearly the same - we look at the little but definitive difference and state that they're quite different.

I see. So if a Norwegian living in Norway and has the laws and everything else in common with every other Norwegian commits a murder he's not a Norwegian anymore he's just a murderer completely different from any other Norwegian? That simply doesn't make sense. You might remember we have a mass murderer on trial in Norway. No one is disputing that he is a Norwegian and has the right to a fair trial like any other Norwegian. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes him from any other Norwegian is that he has committed mass murder. That is why he also has the same rights as any other Norwegian that has committed a crime. It doesn't mean he's a mass murderer not a Norwegian. He is simply an exception from the rule that Norwegians generally don't commit mass murder.

Everybody is an atheist at birth. Then they are taught to believe in god(s). Which god(s) they are taught to believe in simply depends on where they happened to be born. Atheism is the base. Then belief in god(s) are put on a layer on top of the atheist base. The atheist base is non-belief in god(s). Then someone simply says that they should keep their non-belief in god(s) but make an exception for whichever god(s) they believe in where they were born.

But let us agree to disagree. It's not worth arguing about.

An atheist has to believe in a purely materialistic world. In a purely materialistic world, there is only matter and its properties according to which the matter strictly behaves without deviation. In such a world, we can only make descriptive statements such as "Man committed murder" and not prescriptive statements such as "Man ought not to commit murder". This removes the very concept of morality from the reality of a naturalistic world. So, if you do believe in the concept of morality, this would be self-refuting.

An atheist doesn't have to believe in a purely materialistic world, he just lives in one. Belief doesn't apply.

As for the rest of the paragraph I'm not sure what you mean. To me it's blindingly simple:

If you kill someone, his relatives or friends might try to kill you in revenge. So killing someone is not a good survival strategy. Therefore: "Man ought not to commit murder." Laws are simply common sense systematized.

 

[ivdavid]

In fact, the only thing that distinguishes him from any other Norwegian is that he has committed mass murder.

When you are considering "atheists" and "theists" - you must analogically consider "murderers" and "non-murderers/innocents" - not "murderers" and "norwegians". Doesn't fit a valid analogy.

Then someone simply says that they should keep their non-belief in god(s) but make an exception for whichever god(s) they believe in where they were born.

You can never "keep" a negative. This is like saying one "keeps" the darkness making "exception" for the narrow beam of torch light. We can never "retain" a negative, we can simply fill a positive. If you'd start discussing valid definitions, we could avoid such semantic redundancies.

It's not worth arguing about.

I'd agree on this.

As for the rest of the paragraph I'm not sure what you mean. To me it's blindingly simple: Laws are simply common sense systematized.

This is the common over-simplification. If you are serious about wanting to go deeper, take the time to go through this thread and I'd be willing to clarify any issues that you may have then.

 

[Artie]

ivdavid:
You can never "keep" a negative. This is like saying one "keeps" the darkness making "exception" for the narrow beam of torch light. We can never "retain" a negative, we can simply fill a positive. If you'd start discussing valid definitions, we could avoid such semantic redundancies.

You understand what I mean. You start out as atheist, then you are taught to believe in whichever god(s) are believed in in the country you were born. Simple as that. If you don't happen to be taught to believe in god(s) you stay an atheist. Atheism isn't a belief, it's simply the basic state from birth. It's not opposite to anything, it's just the basic state on top of which we put religion. Religion is something we acquire, atheist is what we are from birth. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist". Wikipedia. No children by themselves believe any god(s) exist until they are taught so. Understand? Sorry but I was on a roll.

This is the common over-simplification. If you are serious about wanting to go deeper, take the time to go through this thread and I'd be willing to clarify any issues that you may have then.

Thanks for the offer I might do that later.

 

[childeye]

We agree on that. Your explanation doesn't make sense to me at all. If anyone else thinks it makes sense please come forward and try to explain it in a different way. To say that there is just one God when everybody knows there are thousands, such as Allah and Zeus etc etc makes no sense to me. Here is a huge list of gods mentioned in the Bible: Bible Gods

All I'm saying is there is a Truth that is absolute. To rephrase, men don't invent the Truth we must learn it. That is sound Logic.

 

[Artie]

All I'm saying is there is a Truth that is absolute. To rephrase, men don't invent the Truth we must learn it. That is sound Logic.

But if you happen to be raised a Christian then you are taught Christianity is the Truth, if you happen to be raised a Muslim you are taught Islam is the Truth, if you were born in India you are taught Hinduism is the Truth etc etc. How can they all be Truth?

 

[childeye]

But if you happen to be raised a Christian then you are taught Christianity is the Truth, if you happen to be raised a Muslim you are taught Islam is the Truth, if you were born in India you are taught Hinduism is the Truth etc etc. How can they all be Truth?

They can't be, while there may be some bits of Truth in all of these. When I say Truth I equate it as an absolute with no deviation. That is what the word Holy means. Pure. Please be advised there are false christians and a false christianity, so that when you use the term christian I am left to guess which one you are refering to. Please use a capitol C for a true one and a lower case c for a false one. Please continue to use a capitol T for the true Truth and a small t for a false truth.

Your next question might be how do we know which one is True. That would be a good question, but to answer that one first must conclude there exists a Truth with a capitol T. So unless you believe there is a Truth there is no point in asking which one is True. So do you believe in a Truth without declaring you know what it is? That must be a first step even as in scientific method one must first theorize.

 

[Artie]

Your next question might be how do we know which one is True. That would be a good question, but to answer that one first must conclude there exists a Truth with a capitol T. So unless you believe there is a Truth there is no point in asking which one is True. So do you believe in a Truth without declaring you know what it is? That must be a first step even as in scientific method one must first theorize.

Some Christians will say they have found the Truth. A scientist will pose a theory, test out if it's valid if the evidence says it isn't he'll be happy because he has disproved the theory and thus eliminated another blind alley on the way to the Truth. He will not state that his first theory is the Truth and do what he can to defend it despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[childeye]

Some Christians will say they have found the Truth. A scientist will pose a theory, test out if it's valid if the evidence says it isn't he'll be happy because he has disproved the theory and thus eliminated another blind alley on the way to the Truth. He will not state that his first theory is the Truth and do what he can to defend it despite evidence to the contrary.

Well I see we are getting close to agreeing there is a Truth that a scientist seeks to discover or even a two tear old might discover when he burns himself on a hot stove. Now maybe you understand what I mean by an absolute Truth. That which is true.

Also as per your example, a scientist would not claim something true when all evidence reveals it is not. Except of course if he is a liar. For there have been plent of scientists who have been known to falsify their findings for the sake of prestige or funds to continue their work. Therefore Truth can only be established as true if one is honest.

The fact is we are theorizing in your case that there is a God and this term God must be realized as an absolute in that all that exists was created for there to exist a creator. So as to say if one does not believe in a Creator, he does not believe in such a god. This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God. Can we agree on all I have said?

 

[Artie]

The fact is we are theorizing in your case that there is a God and this term God must be realized as an absolute in that all that exists was created for there to exist a creator. So as to say if one does not believe in a Creator, he does not believe in such a god. This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God. Can we agree on all I have said?

I would say that "the fact is we are theorizing in your case that there are deities and this term deities must be realized as an absolute in that all that exists was created for there to exist some creator(s). So as to say if one does not believe in creator(s), he does not believe in deities. This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to deities where one imagines there are no creator(s)."

Actually there is no atheistic point of view or theory. Everybody on earth are born an atheist. You too. We are born without any knowledge of deities and therefore of course no belief in them. It's a blank slate. It's a completely neutral state which doesn't involve belief or disbelief. Which deities we are taught to believe in simply depends on which country we happened to be born in. Atheism is the base. Some are taught that there are deities and told to believe in them and become religious some do not, some are never taught there are deities and simply stay atheist. An atheist doesn't imagine there are no creator(s). It's the Christians and other religions in the world who imagine there are.

"This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God." You have turned everything upside down. There's is no atheistic point of view that can be a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God. An atheist was born without any knowledge of and therefore no belief in God and they don't let other people tell them what to believe so they stay atheist. You could perhaps say "there is a Christian point of view that can be a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is a God." because a Christian started out as an atheist and didn't believe in God before he was taught the theory that there is a God.

 

[childeye]

I would say that "the fact is we are theorizing in your case that there are deities and this term deities must be realized as an absolute in that all that exists was created for there to exist some creator(s). So as to say if one does not believe in creator(s), he does not believe in deities. This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to deities where one imagines there are no creator(s)."

Actually there is no atheistic point of view or theory. Everybody on earth are born an atheist. You too. We are born without any knowledge of deities and therefore of course no belief in them. It's a blank slate. It's a completely neutral state which doesn't involve belief or disbelief. Which deities we are taught to believe in simply depends on which country we happened to be born in. Atheism is the base. Some are taught that there are deities and told to believe in them and become religious some do not, some are never taught there are deities and simply stay atheist. An atheist doesn't imagine there are no creator(s). It's the Christians and other religions in the world who imagine there are.

"This atheistic point of view is a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God." You have turned everything upside down. There's is no atheistic point of view that can be a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God. An atheist was born without any knowledge of and therefore no belief in God and they don't let other people tell them what to believe so they stay atheist. You could perhaps say "there is a Christian point of view that can be a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is a God." because a Christian started out as an atheist and didn't believe in God before he was taught the theory that there is a God.

I would think that you are describing ignorance not Atheism, being that we are born ignorant of what is. Speaking from experience Christians don't believe in many truths or using your terms, dieties. God being Love is not just learned, but experienced tested and proven. I do believe we would agree, it's just that you have your own term for God which I do not agree to. God to me is Love and not man made dieties, so I would not presume to try to prove to you such dieties exist when I don't even believe in them myself.

You have turned everything upside down.

I don't see how, seeing that if there were a creator He preceded us in existence, so it is logical to assume we would be born ignorant of Him not Him ignorant of us. Certainly the creator would not be theorizing on our existence. It seems to me that you discount the possibility of God based upon a false presumption that God is religion.

There's is no atheistic point of view that can be a theory pertaining to God where one imagines there is no God.

Huh, I thought an atheist didn't believe in the existence of God.

An atheist was born without any knowledge of and therefore no belief in God and they don't let other people tell them what to believe so they stay atheist.

I hardly believe you don't listen to anybody tell you what to believe. 1+1=2. Don't touch the fire it will burn you. There are some that don't believe what others tell them. They are conditioned by being lied to, so they are bound to distrust. I am like that and had to learn the hard way that there are some things that are trustworthy and certain. There is a Love that endures forever is what I must believe or concede to a hypocritical slow death.

 

[Artie]

I would think that you are describing ignorance not Atheism, being that we are born ignorant of what is. Speaking from experience Christians don't believe in many truths or using your terms, dieties.

But I showed you in an earlier post that the Bible is full of deities. Remember? If you don't like the term deities just think god(s) and goddesses instead.

God being Love is not just learned, but experienced tested and proven. I do believe we would agree, it's just that you have your own term for God which I do not agree to. God to me is Love and not man made dieties, so I would not presume to try to prove to you such dieties exist when I don't even believe in them myself.

But you do believe in a deity. God is a deity, just one of many mentioned in the Bible.

I don't see how, seeing that if there were a creator He preceded us in existence, so it is logical to assume we would be born ignorant of Him not Him ignorant of us. Certainly the creator would not be theorizing on our existence. It seems to me that you discount the possibility of God based upon a false presumption that God is religion.

I don't understand what you mean here. You appear to think that there is only one creator god when there are many creator deities?

Huh, I thought an atheist didn't believe in the existence of God.

No, that's the usual misunderstanding. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, including God. Big difference.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Wikipedia

Atheism isn't belief or disbelief, it is most inclusively the absence of belief. Do you see the difference? A child who has never been taught to believe or disbelieve in deities doesn't believe or disbelieve in deities the idea of belief is absent because the child doesn't even know what deities are. When the child is taught what deities are it can actively believe or disbelieve in them of course or simply remain a passive atheist. Like a person doesn't actively believe or disbelieve that the moon is made of green cheese or that deities exist. It just isn't an issue.

I hardly believe you don't listen to anybody tell you what to believe. 1+1=2. Don't touch the fire it will burn you.

And some children touch it anyway because they don't automatically believe what they are told. Those who are not easily led. Those who will become scientists and explorers etc.

There are some that don't believe what others tell them.

And then go out into the world and become scientists and explorers questioning everything because they're not happy just being told things and want to find out for themselves. Where would we be without those people.

They are conditioned by being lied to, so they are bound to distrust. I am like that and had to learn the hard way that there are some things that are trustworthy and certain. There is a Love that endures forever is what I must believe or concede to a hypocritical slow death.

That's a very personal statement. It appears you've had some bad experiences you couldn't cope with and have simply turned to religion for comfort. You're not alone.